The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 4 of 11)

, science news specialist br> University of Utah Public Relations /p> p> Mr. Peters does tend to exaggerate. What does he want to ban next: eating, drink (sodas), putting on makeup and reading. I mean, these are no better than talking on the cell phone. By the way, to play devil's advocate, being impaired is not the same as distracted. br> -- Joseph D'Ambrosia /p>

Eric, you said it!

p>I note you make no distinction between talking on a hand-held phone and using a hands-free device. I would bet that if someone studied this, they would find very little difference in the level of distraction in these two approaches to gabbing while driving. br> -- Jeff Webb br> Madison, New Jersey /p>

I don't understand why some states say it is okay to talk "hands free." It is NOT the holding of the cell phone that is unsafe, but the talking itself. If your brain is tied up thinking about what you are going to say next it is hard to be thinking about the red light ahead, or the school zone sign. Now to make matters worse there are GPS gadgets to look at.

p>Some company better come out quick with cars that drive themselves, so the idiot drivers can kick back and think they are at home in the recliner.

topics:
Taxes, Transportation, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Business, Sports, Law, Iraq, Pakistan, Conservatism